3 ms·

I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Living costs in rural areas isn't the problem. This seems like a variation of the "luxury apartments are actual

by hoaw 8y ago

I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Living costs in rural areas isn't the problem. This seems like a variation of the "luxury apartments are actually good for affordable housing" argument. Which of course is popular on HN, but not particularly true.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Living costs in rural areas isn't the problem. The people can't come from rural areas because they aren't there to begin with, or because they can't leave (e.g. because they're farmers and that's where the farms are, or they don't have the money). To get a large enough influx for the demand to overcome the increase in supply, it has to come from places that already have a lot of people, i.e. suburbs or other cities. Which is where housing costs are a problem. > This seems like a variation of the "luxury apartments are actually good for affordable housing" argument. Which of course is popular on HN, but not particularly true. [citation needed] If you build more housing then people move into it. Those people used to live somewhere else. The place they used to live opens up for someone else. If the new place is above-average that means everybody gets to move up -- new supply lowers cost of luxury apartments from $3000/month to $2500, which means the previous $2500 apartments fall to $2200, which means the previous $2200 apartments fall to $2000 etc. On the one hand, this means the effect on $750 apartments is relatively small because some of the benefit of increased supply is also going to people with $1500 apartments and $2000 apartments. On the other hand, that's actually what we need. It's absurd to have a giant cliff between regulated "affordable housing" and market rate housing. People at the 50th percentile need to be able to afford housing too.

3 ms·

I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Living costs in rural areas isn't the problem. This seems like a variation of the "luxury apartments are actual

by hoaw 8y ago

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Living costs in rural areas isn't the problem. The people can't come from rural areas because they aren't there to begin with, or because they can't leave (e.g. because they're farmers and that's where the farms are, or they don't have the money). To get a large enough influx for the demand to overcome the increase in supply, it has to come from places that already have a lot of people, i.e. suburbs or other cities. Which is where housing costs are a problem. > This seems like a variation of the "luxury apartments are actually good for affordable housing" argument. Which of course is popular on HN, but not particularly true. [citation needed] If you build more housing then people move into it. Those people used to live somewhere else. The place they used to live opens up for someone else. If the new place is above-average that means everybody gets to move up -- new supply lowers cost of luxury apartments from $3000/month to $2500, which means the previous $2500 apartments fall to $2200, which means the previous $2200 apartments fall to $2000 etc. On the one hand, this means the effect on $750 apartments is relatively small because some of the benefit of increased supply is also going to people with $1500 apartments and $2000 apartments. On the other hand, that's actually what we need. It's absurd to have a giant cliff between regulated "affordable housing" and market rate housing. People at the 50th percentile need to be able to afford housing too.